Friday
Mar122010
Iran: An Opening Thought on the Disconnection in Washington
Friday, March 12, 2010 at 7:21 
Still travelling this morning, with academic duties in Liverpool. I'm learning from the discussion on gender issues in a separate entry, and I'm thinking through my impressions of the view from Washington of the Iran crisis, not only from the NIAC conference but from other conversations and observations.I'll try to write the analysis for Saturday, but my primary impression is of the disconnection between events inside Iran and how the best American analysts are approaching the situation. There can be a lengthy, engaging conversation about all the complexities of the post-election conflict --- about the quest for legitimacy and about the demands for rights, about the role of students, youth, and labour, about "leadership" and "grassroots" --- but all of that evaporates when the topic turns to "What Should the US Do?"
At that point, the two-clock metaphor takes it central place: the "nuclear clock" and the "democracy clock". Except no one pays attention to the democracy clock; it's all about the supposed ticking of the nuclear clock (even if, as one of the best US analysts noted, that clock is not real but illusory, given the limits on Iran's nuclear progress). And so once more, "Iran" is reduced to the nuclear matter, with geopolitical buttresses such as Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and "Iranians" become the Supreme Leader, Ahmadinejad, and those who may or may not negotiate a deal with Washington.
Reader Comments (8)
Hello, Mr. Lucas - viewing the NIAC panels and speakers left me with exactly the same conclusion, which was discouraging personally, but more importantly, the overall message conveyed little hope or support for all those Iranis who are working so steadily and hard at great cost.
No participants except one S Lucas truly directed attention to the real dynamic of the situation. Thank you very much indeed. I cannot say enough how satisfying it was to hear you repeat in series -- "That's wrong." -- with such conviction. Your version of an Iran message is heartening because it is informed, truthful and focuses on those who matter most and suffer daily in Iran.
Thank you for making sure the real business at hand was not totally omitted from this 'event.' And here's hoping you are a part of many more panels to come.
Mr. Lucas - First, kudos on the wonderful testimony at NIAC. You stuck out like a beacon in the darkness! Please do continue your work on the "democracy clock". We are paying attention, and I'm sure your fan base is growing! ;) You are Green, my friend. And between you and the Geneva Summit this week, the green movement has been solidified!
Dear Scott,
Unfortunately it's 3am here and I am about to pass out so can't engage like I want to, but I just wanted to say that during the entire afternoon panel, I kept wanting to say, "But wait a minute, this entire conversation is centered on a false dichotomy of sanctions vs militarization. Not only that, but you keep talking about the Islamic Republic as if it is a government like any other, and so should be dealt with like any other. IT IS NOT A NORMAL GOVERNMENT! STOP TRYING TO TREAT IT LIKE ONE!"
The issue of supporting democracy came up briefly, but seemed to me to be perceived as an approach that was not time-efficient/on the same temporal trajectory as development of nuclear capabilities, and would yield unpredictable results. However, besides being inhumane and destructive, it must be recognized that increased militarization or sanctions ALSO would yield unpredictable results... (this whole argument reminds me of the caesarean v natural childbirth debates: surgeons think that they can better control outcomes via increasing interventions, but the data indicate that if you simply support nature in taking its course, outcomes are better for both mother and neonate... but I digress. lol.)
It seemed to me that no one *liked* the idea of either militarization or increased/tightened sanctions, but militarization was deemed to be off the table for this administration for a number of reasons, and the "we have to do something" mindset then automatically defaults to the alternate solution in their falsely dichotomized set of options.
Parsi at NIAC seems to advocate a no war, no economic sanctions, no nothing approach, per his March 15 piece in TIME (The Iranian Riddle).
We at MFI also advocate no war and no economic sanctions. We agree that some patience is required. BUT we do not at all advocate a "do nothing" approach. To the contrary, there is a great deal that our administration could and should be doing that has the following benefits:
1) stands a high probability of being effective in a) getting rid of the current regime, and b) resulting in favor of those who desire a democratic and secular state.
2) is the least expensive option to implement
3) won't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents due to either sanctions or war
4) fundamentally supports the ongoing resistance movement in Iran without directly intervening at all
5) respects the autonomy and self-determination of the Iranian people
6) hews to international standards set by bodies such as the United Nations.
It goes like this, assuming that the desired outcome from the point of view of US policy is a free/democratic Iran:
1> A militarily aggressive posture threatens the Iranian people, hurts the American people personally and economically, and does not lead to the desired outcomes.
2> Additional economic sanctions, already hurting the Iranian people, will not touch this regime, but will cripple the people. As my dear friend Ahmad says, "Starving people dream of bread, not revolution." As the Iraqis next door say, "You killed upwards of 500,000 of our beloved innocent children, directly or indirectly, via sanctions. How can you live with that blood on your hands?"
3> Further, we have TRIED a threatening posture vis-a-vis Tehran, and they laughed. We have TRIED sanctions, and they have not touched this regime.
4> What we HAVE seen as the single most effective force threatening the foundations of this criminal regime, which terrorizes its own population as well as the rest of the world, is the discontent of its people.
This regime has never constituted a normal government, and to survive the repeated economic and political crises it has experienced since its inception in 1979 it has had to resort to mass slaughter, execution, and repression of thousands of dissidents, many of whom can now be found (or not found) in places like Khavaran. It has institutionalized inhumane controls over half the population to keep the entire society in check (divide and conquer, anyone?).
While it is clear to anyone who cares to have a look that this government has never been legitimate, it is also clear that the Islamic Republic has gone to great lengths and to any costs to be *perceived* as legitimate in the eyes of its people and the rest of the world.
After June 2009, the illegitimacy of this regime can no longer be denied. The Iranian people have now risen up and declared once and for all that this regime is not legitimate. They are demanding their human rights, and are clearly signaling to the world that they are fighting to be free from its depredations.
Their demands and actions have demonstrably threatened and weakened the regime in a way that no US policy could ever hope to.
Any objective analysis can reach only one conclusion: The peoples' movement represents the only real hope there is of seeing a free/democratic/humane republic of Iran.
So what does US policy have to do to support the Iranian people in their fight to delegitimize, and then dissolve, this usurping terrorist regime?
It is very simple: US policy must echo the policy of the Iranian people:
>> The Iranian people say that the Islamic Republic is not legitimate by their demonstrations in the street, because it is the only way for them to publicly express themselves.
>> US policy must demonstrate concurrence with the Iranian people that we too believe that the Islamic Republic is not a legitimate regime, and we do this by shuttering embassies (or the Iran Interests Section of the Pakistani Embassy), lobbying for the Islamic Republic to be thrown out of the various UN bodies (and replaced by some interim council or body representing the Iranian people), and otherwise refusing the grant this criminal regime legitimacy on the international stage, for example by imposing political sanctions, travel bans, revocation of diplomatic status.
>> US people must express our support for the Iranian peoples' bid for democracy through people-to-people outreach.
If the US wants to tell the Iranian people that we have their back, THAT is the most effective way, and the SAFEST way (for the Iranian resistance), to do so. And once this democratic movement gets the signal that both the American people and the American government are strongly agreeing with and applauding their resistance to the regime - sees that the US is not going to undermine or interfere with their work - once they see that the Islamic Republic has not a single friend (ok, maybe Chavez) amongst the legitimate governments of the world, the Iranian democratic movement will be empowered in a way that no other foreign policy approach could replicate. The Islamic Regime will crumble.
Now of course some will ask, "But what will replace it?" And I will suggest that you look at the tone of the current movement, the demands of the current movement, and then recall that every people has the right to self-determination.
This is where US policy has to forget about intervention, forget about trying to control outcomes, and just stand back FOR ONCE and let the Iranian people take care of the business they came to the streets to take care of.
There are of course no guarantees in any of this. There are no guarantees with war, no guarantees with sanctions, and no guarantees with the approach that puts our full moral support behind the Iranian bid for freedom.
But there is only one approach that is correct, humane, and respects Iranian self-determination. And it just so happens to be the only approach that puts its money on the only team of the three that has a winning track record.
It is now 4am. The above is sloppy and I am sorry and I will revise and resubmit later. Thanks for giving the space to put this out there. :)
~Maria
Dismissing forced hijab as a secondary issue to be taken care of "later" while the larger issue of "human rights" is addressed...it's like saying overturning "separate bu equal" should take a backseat to other, more universal social concerns. Of course, the fact that you all-male panel of non-Iranians and long-term Iranian expats, yourself included, took that stance doesn't surprise me very much at all.
Maria - [Removed by moderator] If the IR's government is illegitimate considering that the IR system was approved in a popular referendum by over 90% of the people, then there are plenty well ahead of it. Israel comes to mind. A colonialist settler state imposed upon someone else's land, sustained by the 'free' world's leading state, the USA, responsible for numerous human rights violations and UN resolutions/international laws and armed to the teeth with some 200 nukes. The only country in the region that has repeatedly aggressed against its neighbours and openly threatens to inflict damage to its neighbours and considering that many of its citizens were holocaust survivors or their descendants, it is ironic that they have the victims of their aggression in concentration camp that Gaza and West Bank have become. Now they are seeking to even eliminate Muslim heritage.
I should have added that in addition to closing off diplomatic dealings with Iran until a legitmate government that represents the people is formed, the US should continue to show support for the Iranian people in various helpful ways.
For example, the US has a nice diplomatic relationship with Turkey. We can work with the Turkish government to ensure that Iranian refugees to Turkey are received into that country in a humane fashion, their cases are processed quickly and efficiently, and they are not subject to the terrors and disempowerment that too frequently mark the refugee's journey to hoped-for safety.
Scott, I think you now see why so many people were cheering you on prior to your Washington visit. Most people perceive that you are one of the only "Westerners" standing up for the Green movement inside Iran. Most others, regardless of their particular perspective, are focusing on "the West achieving its aims" as opposed to "The brave Iranian democracy/freedom advocates achieving their aims." This focus really transcends political ideology.
@REZVAN
When somebody criticizes Iran - a response by you criticizing another country (whether Israel or the Eskimos) does not in any way counter that first person's criticism of Iran. You may think it does - as it appears to be an almost automatic response, but it does not answer the initial post. It merely makes it appear that your hatred of the other country (in this case Israel) is what causes you to excuse the actions of the "current" Iranian Regime against their own people. Your eyes are wide open towards the direction of Israel - but closed towards Iran.
Barry